Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I will not raise a point of order, but would the Senator from Colorado join in requesting the Senator from Idaho to hold a hearing on this subject? I think it is a fairly complicated thing that deserves a hearing.

Mr. BUMPERS. And the amendment also has a provision in it that it will only apply to renewal of permits and not new permits?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage in a 1-minute colloquy with the Senator from Colorado. I could not hear one word he said.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me ask two questions of the Senator from Colorado. First, as I understand it, the amendment has been modified so that it will only apply to Forest Service language.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes from my distinguished colleague. First of all, I compliment my good friend from Nevada for his perseverance in trying to rein in, if not torpedo totally, a program that has absolutely no justification. He has been very diligent about this, and I have been honored to stand by his side to try to bring some sanity to the agriculture program but especially to eliminate the Market Promotion Program. As long as this program is on the books, at least once a year every news magazine in the country, from ``60 Minutes'' on down, is going to do a piece on it. Every time they do a piece on it, millions of Americans are going to say, ``What on Earth are those clowns thinking about? How on Earth can they justify such a program as this?'' Well, America, the answer is, we cannot. If I had my druthers, I would torpedo this program to zero. But the Senator from Nevada is not asking to cut the program totally. He is saying go back to the figure the Senate adopted 62 to 32 about 6 months ago, and put it back where the Senate had it at that time. It was passed overwhelmingly here. I am not going to belabor the arguments that have already been made, but the one salient argument that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Nevada has made--and I will make it again because you cannot make it often enough--what in the name of God are we doing subsidizing Ernest and Julio Gallo, even Tyson Foods, the biggest employer in my State, and Jim Beam? That ought to make the Christian Coalition happy. All we are saying is, in the future we are going to do what GAO recommended, except for one thing: They recommended that it be cut to a small business, generic, a new-to-exports small business program and funded at no more than $50 million. The Senator from Nevada's amendment says $70 million. Of course, that is $70 million too much, but we live in a real world around here. We know we cannot torpedo the thing because big business has too many defenders in this body. The second thing GAO said is there is absolutely no proof that we are not simply replacing money these corporations would use on their own. Everybody knows that is true. It is just a piece of welfare. If I were the Gallo brothers, if I were Ralston Purina, Tyson Foods, Campbell Soup, Jim Beam, whoever, I would take the money, too. But, colleagues, here is what this amendment does. It says, No. 1, you cannot give this money directly to a big business. You can give it to a generic institute. You can give it to Riceland Foods. You can give it to any of these national coalitions that have as their members all the poultry industry, all the liquor industry, those kinds of things. But we also confine it to generic small business as defined by the Small Business Administration. It is a tragedy that we cannot kill this program. When I think about what we are doing to worthy programs in discretionary spending and standing here, pleading with you to cut the most outrageous program that we fund from $110 to $70 million, it is unfathomable. So, Mr. President, let me say the jobs the Senator from Mississippi talks about this creating, GAO says those are jobs we created anyway. Do you think McDonald's is going to quit trying to sell Big Mac's all over the world if we do not give them money? Let me close by the saying I have had an excellent relationship with the Senator from Mississippi. Back before a terribly untoward event happened in November 1994, I was chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and he was my ranking member. Now he is chairman and I am his ranking member. This is one of the few disagreements he and I ever had. We get along just fine in that committee and worked out those appropriations bills jointly, and I hope for the country's benefit. This is one place I strongly disagree. I hope our colleagues will again vote 62 to 32 to pass this amendment. I yield the floor and yield back such time as I have to the Senator from Nevada. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the reason I strongly favor this substitute is because it salvages rice markets. Under the freedom-to- farm bill, payments start out big, peak in the third year, and they go down after that. Right now, cotton, wheat, and corn, three of the big program crops in this country, are all bringing more than the target price, which means under existing law those programs would not cost us anything if those prices hold up through the rest of the year. That is not true of rice. And I am not optimistic that rice will achieve anything like, say, $9.50 to $10 a hundredweight any time in the foreseeable future. And so what is going to happen under the freedom-to-farm act? Rice farmers are going to be producing rice for about $3 a bushel, if current prices stay up, $3.50, and they cannot do it. They cannot stay in business. So everybody is being lured with this siren song about how much money we are going to pay you on the front end, and then it is over. Now, the Democratic alternative program at least is a 3-year program, provides for a 40-percent advance, and will at least give rice farmers a chance to produce and stay in business. Under the freedom-to-farm bill, they will stay in business the first 3 or 4 years--unless public clamour forces the entire program to a quick termination, but after that they are going to start dropping like flies. I am not absolutely rhapsodic about this substitute. I do not have any delusions about it passing. But I wanted to vote for something so they can put on my epitaph that I was violently opposed to the freedom- to-farm bill because I think it is one of the worst disasters this country is going to face. We did not put in place the existing law just on a whim. We did it because we thought it was a good balance between the taxpayers and the farmers. It is a good balance, and it is working. It is working extremely well. You could not pick a worse time to do away with today's program. On the other hand, if you wanted to do away with farm programs, with today's high prices for most commodities, a time when farmers know that they don't need immediate assistance from Federal farm programs, you couldn't find a better time or a darker night in which to do it. This substitute retains the requirements of actually farming in order to participate in farm programs. This may seem like a trivial requirement, but it does not exist at all in the freedom-to- farm bill. This substitute continues to provide a true safety net for farmers during periods of market collapse. This substitute will protect farmers when they need it and it does not offer them a golden parachute to the tropics. Farming is hard work, and this substitute works with farmers. Anyone who looks closely at our proposal will learn it has some good features. And most importantly, it is infinitely better than what we have before us in the form of freedom to farm. I thank the Democratic leader for yielding to me. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, as Laurel used to say, ``We have gotten ourselves into a fine fix.'' There is something about this whole thing that obviously is eluding me. I must confess that a lot of my farmers, or at least the organizations, have gone from being violently opposed to the freedom- to-farm bill to now favoring it. While I understand that--and I certainly am not in any position to criticize some of the farmers in my State who now favor freedom to farm--I still believe that the vast majority of the farmers in my State, particularly rice farmers--and there are thousands of them, as we produce 40 percent of all the rice in the country--farmers, in my opinion, would ultimately be devastated when the freedom-to-farm bill passes. Cotton and wheat are different matters. I think the best description of the freedom-to-farm bill I have heard was one that was given in caucus the other day by the senior Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, when he said the freedom-to-farm bill is like the Kool-Aid that Jimmy Jones gave all his devotees when they were drinking poison. It tastes good going down, but it is fatal. The freedom-to-farm bill simply says, and I do not embellish or exaggerate, for example, if you plant cotton and the target price that has been set by Congress on cotton is about 72 cents or 74 cents a pound--I think 74 cents a pound; cotton right now in New York is selling for a lot more than that--that means under the existing program, the taxpayers of this country, because cotton is bringing more than the target price, would not cost the taxpayers one nickel. If you are getting 85 cents to 89 cents a pound, you are above the target price. There are a lot of things--from weather to pests--that can cause you not to produce as much cotton as you normally do, but that is true in any circumstance. To proceed with the story, we will assume that during the marketing period this fall during which we determine how much more or less than the target price cotton brought during those 5 months, assume that cotton brings substantially more than the target price. Under the freedom-to-farm bill, for purposes of making the point, assume that farmers make a bale and a half to two bales an acre. That is a very good crop, but assume they do. Assume, further, that they get 85 cents a pound. I promise, under normal circumstances, that is very profitable. What does the freedom-to-farm bill do? It gives them 7 cents a pound more, above that price. That is like that Kool-Aid that tastes so good, but 3 years from now it is not 7 cents, it is something less, and at the end of 7 years it is zero. If cotton has to be selling for 65 or 70 cents a pound, do not come crying to the Federal Government for some kind of subsidy. Why would we do this at a time when the programs that we have had in existence for many years are working? Madam President, in 1995 commodity prices--wheat, corn and cotton, especially, but other grains, too--were so high that we came in on farm subsidy expenditures $4 billion less than the baseline. In other words, $4 billion less than we thought we would have to pay out. We would think this place would be rhapsodic because we saved $4 billion because commodity prices are good. No, we want to sing this siren song to the farmers saying, ``Go along with us. We will cut your throat down the road, but you will get rich for 2 or 3 years before we get around to it.'' I gave you the illustration of cotton, but that is true of every commodity. All the commodity prices right now are very good, with the exception of rice. If we did not have target prices for rice right now, I am not sure what, if any, percent of the 40 percent of the Nation's rice crop we produce in Arkansas would be produced. Maybe none. Farmers are not known to plant when they know they will lose money on the front end. They do not ever intend to lose money. It just happens. I have an amendment, if I ever get an opportunity to offer it, which would simply extend the present farm program for 1 year. We ought to adopt that amendment right now and then start amending it. If there are things that people want to change about the existing programs, let them amend it. If there are things about rural development in America, let them add it to that amendment. Do not get out on the floor of the U.S. Senate and try to craft a bill that half the Members know nothing about, do not understand, and which, in my opinion, is terrible for the American farmer. Madam President, I am dismayed and disheartened and saddened that the positions I have just stated are probably not going to prevail. All I am saying is it makes imminent good sense to extend the existing program, which, as I pointed out a moment ago as graphically as I know how, is succeeding. It is doing precisely what those of us in the past many years have said would happen. The present farm program is key to market prices of commodities. The freedom-to-farm bill is not key to anything except the demise of the farmer. They say that it will represent a $12 billion savings over the next 7 years. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows? When you talk about saving $12 billion, assume for the sake of art they know exactly what they are talking about, and they do to some extent. You can put this in a computer and come up with a figure, and they have done it. If we were $4 billion under the baseline in 1995, and commodity prices right now are higher than they were in 1995, there is an excellent chance that 1996 will be further under the baseline than 1995 was. At least the farmers have that safety net under them. The farmer who raises cotton is going to get that 7 cents a pound I alluded to a moment ago, regardless of what the market rice is. The farmer who gets that extra 7 cents is going to be pretty well-to-do. Another thing about it that drives me up the wall, do not plant your cotton. Do not plant anything. We will still give you 7 cents a pound whether you put a plow or a seed in the ground. Come on the floor of the Senate and propose a program like that for 17-year-old poor pregnant girls and you will have a revolution on your hands here. Farmers are not interested in welfare. I guess they could be bought off with this. But it is welfare. You can call it anything you want. That is what it amounts to. We are doing this while we are saying that we hope poor children in this country will get treated under Medicaid, but we are not guaranteeing anything. So, you are going to see ``60 Minutes,'' ``Prime Time Live,'' ``20/ 20.'' They will be scouring all the expensive vacation places in the country, trying to find farmers who have taken this 7 cents a pound. Maybe they planted, maybe they did not. They get the money anyway-- again, whether they farm or not. What kind of a farm program is that, Madam President? So let me just close by saying something sort of unrelated to this. Here we are debating whether or not we are going to give farmers all this money as a gift, for doing nothing, and the big debate going on in Medicare and Medicaid is, for example in Medicaid, shall we make it an entitlement as it is now or shall we make it a block grant? And what are the politics of those two? The other day I spoke to the hospital administrators. This is off the subject of farming, but one of the hospital administrators asked me a question. What is our policy on something or other? It was a very good question. I said, you know, you would never make it here. You are not supposed to ask what the policy is in regard to the future of the country, or what our real values are. You are supposed to worry about does this help Steve Forbes or Bill Clinton? Those are the questions you are supposed to ask around here. So it is with Medicaid. The question should not be, Are we going to make it an entitlement or a block grant? The question ought to be, Are we going to allow children to go without health care because they are poor? That is the question. It is just that simple. That ought to be the policy first. Then you work out the details later. So it is with the budget. If I were a youngster running for Governor again, like I was one time, I would say--and as I do now, to my constituents--the values the people of this country cherish do not change very much from year to year. Things change. Health care delivery changes. Highways change. Television programming and movies change. Everything changes. But what we profess to believe as our values do not change very much. If I were running for office I would say: Look, balancing the budget is one of our values in this country. All of us believe in fiscal responsibility. We do not act like it sometimes, but if you ask people do you believe in that, the answer is yes. Have you ever heard anybody answer the question, do you want to balance the budget--have you ever heard anybody answer that in the negative? Of course not. You never will. It is a value in this country. Once you get past that value you have to ask yourself what are the other values in that budget that we cherish most? Winston Churchill said, you can tell more about a civilization by the way they treat their elderly than any other way. So let us just take that first. Everybody believes in Medicare. They believe in Medicaid that provides nursing home care for poor people. I do not mind telling you, Madam President, I get letters from people who chastise me about something I said on the floor, or some value I articulated on the floor, and especially sometimes from wealthy people. Why do you not do this? Or why do you not do that? I know, a lot of times wealthy people have Aunt Lucy in a nursing home on Medicaid. I used to have a nursing home many years ago. I know--I know that some of those people who are rabid about cutting Medicaid or something else, if you say we are going to kick Aunt Lucy out of the nursing home you will hear a different song. Because we value elderly people. We want them taken care of. We do not want them on the streets. We do not want them abused. We want them to have good care and we pay for it at a very, very handsome price. And our children. As I said, there is not a soul in this body, I do not think, who, if you said you are going to have to pay more taxes or you are going to see children on the streets desperately in need of a home and of health care, who would not say I will pay it. Then you say, would you be willing to pay more taxes if it went for education? I have never seen a poll that said no to that. If you call it welfare that is one thing. If you call it poor children it comes out quite differently. So, Madam President, I made sort of a rambling speech. I might say one other thing just as an aside. I saw in last Friday's Post that some 20 so-called moderate Republicans in the House said, ``We are willing to forgo the tax cut.'' Bully for them. It is an oxymoron, to talk about cutting taxes and balancing the budget. I do not know what kind of condition the Medicare system is in. I saw the story in the New York Times yesterday. It is much worse than any of us thought. But I still maintain that if the House Speaker and the negotiators in the Senate and the President would all forgo the tax cut, the rest of it will fall into place. You have all the time in the world to cut taxes. You are rolling the dice when you cut taxes because you are betting that everything GAO or CBO said would happen in the budget will come true. Wait 3 years. If it has come true, then cut taxes. Do not do it now and wish you had not. So, I compliment those moderate Republicans over there who have had the courage to defy their leadership and say something which I think is eminently sensible. So, Madam President, fiscal responsibility, the elderly, our children, education, the environment--those are our values. I do not care how nasty the mood in this country is, and we all know it is pretty nasty, I still would not hesitate to run and not ever talk about anything but the four things I just mentioned. So, I wish that wise and sane heads would prevail and we could get something done on this farm bill. For example, extend the present bill. We have no business trying to craft a farm bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Extend the present bill for a year. If there are parts of that you disagree with, offer an amendment to do something about it. Change it, but do not take a bill that was immensely unpopular last summer, with all the farm groups--Chairman Roberts could not even get it out of his committee in the House--and all of a sudden it is our salvation. I say, I hope saner heads will prevail and that will happen.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question? The majority leader may have already covered this. I am concerned about this. I am vitally interested in the farm bill. I have no objection whatever going to the telecommunications bill. But if at some point this afternoon some sort of a compromise is reached, I hope that we will not have any difficulty setting the telecommunications bill aside and then get back to the farm bill and, hopefully, dispose of it this evening.

Mr. BUMPERS. My concern, Mr. President, to the majority leader was, I wish we could incorporate into the unanimous-consent request that the majority leader will have a right to automatically set the telecommunications bill aside. I do not want somebody to object to that and get us bogged down here so that we cannot get back to the farm bill.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on February 29, Carl S. Whillock, one of Arkansas' all-time great citizens, will retire as president and chief executive officer of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. and Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., a post he has held since 1980. A native of Scotland, AR (Van Buren County), Carl has spent most of his life in public service. Prior to his career with AECI, he was president of Arkansas State University. He began a career of public service in our State legislature, serving two terms in the early 1950's. From June of 1955 until January of 1963, Carl served as executive assistant to U.S. Representative J.W. Trimble. He next served as prosecuting attorney of Arkansas' 14th Judicial District from January of 1965 until 1966, when he became assistant to the president of the University of Arkansas. He left that post in July of 1971 to became director of university relations, where he served until April of 1974. Carl managed the successful gubernatorial campaign of David Pryor in 1974 and served as his executive assistant in 1975. He returned to the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville late that year to become vice president of governmental relations and public affairs. In July of 1978, he became president of Arkansas State University. Carl attended the University of Central Arkansas at Conway and Emory University in Atlanta, GA, before earning a degree in social welfare from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. He was awarded the master of arts degree in history and political science from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the juris doctor degree from George Washington University in Washington, DC. A well-respected executive in the national electric cooperative community, Carl also has worked tirelessly in numerous civic and community affairs positions in our State and our region. Mr. President, wherever Carl Whillock has lived and worked throughout our State, his support for community goals and initiatives has been sought. He is the personification of what citizenship is about. I want to join thousands of others in wishing Carl and Margaret a happy and healthy, peaceful and prosperous retirement. They have certainly earned it.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I introduce the Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of 1996. This bill would: First, create a government corporation to own and operate the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves; and second, authorize the privatization of the corporation within 5 years if the taxpayers receive a fair return. The naval petroleum reserves consist of three fields: Elk Hills in California; Buena Vista Hills in California and Teapot Dome in Wyoming. The Federal Government owns 100 percent of both Buena Vista Hills and Teapot Dome. However, the Government owns only 78 percent of Elk Hills. The remaining 22 percent is owned by Chevron. Elk Hills is by far the most significant area, making it one of the largest fields in the United States. In fact, Elk Hills produces approximately $400 million per year in revenues for the Federal Treasury. Similarly, there are three naval oil shale reserves. Naval oil shale reserves 1 and 3 are located in northwest Colorado. Naval oil shale reserve 2 is located in eastern Utah. Unlike the Naval Petroleum reserves, there is no production from the oil shale reserves because development of oil shale is not currently economical. However, there is also recoverable natural gas. Both the administration and the majority party in Congress have, at various times, proposed that the naval petroleum reserves be sold and the administration has also proposed that two of the three oil shale reserves be privatized as well. While I am not necessarily opposed to the notion of removing the Government from the oil production business, I am troubled that the various proposals do not put the taxpayers' interests first. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that the sale of the naval petroleum reserves as originally proposed would produce $1.55 billion in receipts. CBO also determined that the sale would actually cost the Government $992 million over 7 years because the reserves would produce approximately $2.5 billion in revenues in the Government retains the assets during that same time period. While the CBO estimate does not take into account the appropriated expenditures made annually for operation and maintenance of the petroleum reserves, the sale of the assets would eliminate possibly billions of dollars worth of additional revenue that would be derived from the continued operation of the naval petroleum reserves over the life of the assets. From 1987 until this year, Congress prohibited revenue derived from the sale of Government assets from being scored for budget purposes. I strongly opposed the change made to the asset sale scoring rule in this year's budget resolution for exactly the reasons exemplified by the proposed sale of the naval petroleum reserves. It makes no sense to sell an asset for some quick cash when, in the long run, the loss of revenues from the sold Government asset outweighs the funds derived from the sale. However, that is exactly what the budget rules now permit and, in fact, promote. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I am not necessarily opposed to the privatization of the naval petroleum reserves and the naval oil shale reserves. However, I am opposed to selling these assets for far less than they are worth to their current owners--the Americans taxpayers. The bill I am introducing today is designed to ensure that the value of these assets are maximized. First, by creating a Government corporation, the naval petroleum reserves can be operated in a more efficient manner in the absence of burdensome restrictions placed on Government agencies. Second, the corporation will have the time to adequately evaluate the worth of the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves to make sure that if they are sold, the taxpayers receive an adequate return. Finally, my bill authorizes the corporation to privatize, but only if the price paid by private investors is at least equal to the net present value if the corporation remained in Government hands. Government corporatization is not a new idea. In fact, the Department of Energy [DOE] proposed creating a Government corporation to own and operate the naval petroleum reserves in 1993. An internal DOE analysis determined that a Government corporation is the option that would produce the greatest net present value associated with the naval petroleum reserves through 2040. In addition, in 1994 the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] recommended that the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves be owned and operated by a Government corporation. In fact, the Academy estimated that the net present value of the naval petroleum reserves, if they were owned by a Government corporation, would be $4.1 billion. This is far greater than the $1.55 billion which CBO estimates the sale of the petroleum reserves would produce. Mr. President, our constituents have sent us to Washington, in part, to act as their guardians by ensuring that their interests, as taxpayers, are protected. Our obligations are not limited to making sure that the funds provided by their taxes are spent wisely. It is also the duty of everyone in this body to require that when taxpayer- owned assets are disposed of, that the taxpayers receive a fair return. It is beyond belief that anyone could argue that selling the naval petroleum reserves for $1.55 billion is a better choice than creating a Government corporation to own and operate the reserves which will provide more than $4 billion adjusted for net present value. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I introduce the Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of 1996. This bill would: First, create a government corporation to own and operate the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves; and second, authorize the privatization of the corporation within 5 years if the taxpayers receive a fair return. The naval petroleum reserves consist of three fields: Elk Hills in California; Buena Vista Hills in California and Teapot Dome in Wyoming. The Federal Government owns 100 percent of both Buena Vista Hills and Teapot Dome. However, the Government owns only 78 percent of Elk Hills. The remaining 22 percent is owned by Chevron. Elk Hills is by far the most significant area, making it one of the largest fields in the United States. In fact, Elk Hills produces approximately $400 million per year in revenues for the Federal Treasury. Similarly, there are three naval oil shale reserves. Naval oil shale reserves 1 and 3 are located in northwest Colorado. Naval oil shale reserve 2 is located in eastern Utah. Unlike the Naval Petroleum reserves, there is no production from the oil shale reserves because development of oil shale is not currently economical. However, there is also recoverable natural gas. Both the administration and the majority party in Congress have, at various times, proposed that the naval petroleum reserves be sold and the administration has also proposed that two of the three oil shale reserves be privatized as well. While I am not necessarily opposed to the notion of removing the Government from the oil production business, I am troubled that the various proposals do not put the taxpayers' interests first. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that the sale of the naval petroleum reserves as originally proposed would produce $1.55 billion in receipts. CBO also determined that the sale would actually cost the Government $992 million over 7 years because the reserves would produce approximately $2.5 billion in revenues in the Government retains the assets during that same time period. While the CBO estimate does not take into account the appropriated expenditures made annually for operation and maintenance of the petroleum reserves, the sale of the assets would eliminate possibly billions of dollars worth of additional revenue that would be derived from the continued operation of the naval petroleum reserves over the life of the assets. From 1987 until this year, Congress prohibited revenue derived from the sale of Government assets from being scored for budget purposes. I strongly opposed the change made to the asset sale scoring rule in this year's budget resolution for exactly the reasons exemplified by the proposed sale of the naval petroleum reserves. It makes no sense to sell an asset for some quick cash when, in the long run, the loss of revenues from the sold Government asset outweighs the funds derived from the sale. However, that is exactly what the budget rules now permit and, in fact, promote. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I am not necessarily opposed to the privatization of the naval petroleum reserves and the naval oil shale reserves. However, I am opposed to selling these assets for far less than they are worth to their current owners--the Americans taxpayers. The bill I am introducing today is designed to ensure that the value of these assets are maximized. First, by creating a Government corporation, the naval petroleum reserves can be operated in a more efficient manner in the absence of burdensome restrictions placed on Government agencies. Second, the corporation will have the time to adequately evaluate the worth of the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves to make sure that if they are sold, the taxpayers receive an adequate return. Finally, my bill authorizes the corporation to privatize, but only if the price paid by private investors is at least equal to the net present value if the corporation remained in Government hands. Government corporatization is not a new idea. In fact, the Department of Energy [DOE] proposed creating a Government corporation to own and operate the naval petroleum reserves in 1993. An internal DOE analysis determined that a Government corporation is the option that would produce the greatest net present value associated with the naval petroleum reserves through 2040. In addition, in 1994 the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] recommended that the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves be owned and operated by a Government corporation. In fact, the Academy estimated that the net present value of the naval petroleum reserves, if they were owned by a Government corporation, would be $4.1 billion. This is far greater than the $1.55 billion which CBO estimates the sale of the petroleum reserves would produce. Mr. President, our constituents have sent us to Washington, in part, to act as their guardians by ensuring that their interests, as taxpayers, are protected. Our obligations are not limited to making sure that the funds provided by their taxes are spent wisely. It is also the duty of everyone in this body to require that when taxpayer- owned assets are disposed of, that the taxpayers receive a fair return. It is beyond belief that anyone could argue that selling the naval petroleum reserves for $1.55 billion is a better choice than creating a Government corporation to own and operate the reserves which will provide more than $4 billion adjusted for net present value. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, for the first time in nearly half a century, we are rapidly approaching the end of the first month of the first year in which American farmers are without a farm bill. To those not directly engaged in agriculture, this fact may be little more than a slightly interesting footnote to a much larger story of deadlock in Washington. Actually, the only people not involved in agriculture are those who don't eat. But to men, women, and families across this Nation whose livelihood comes from the production of food and fiber, this simple fact is keeping them awake at night. What is most striking and most disquieting about the failure to enact a farm bill on time is the apparent disregard by some Members of Congress to the plight of family farmers who are desperately calling me and other Senators for some signal of what to expect for the 1996 crop year. You can't blame them. If you look at the calendar you will see it is 1996 and farmers in my State, especially rice farmers, need to be in the fields in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, before they go into the fields, most farmers need to go into their banks. But bankers are unable to complete loans due to the uncertainty in farm policy that has resulted from just 1 year of Republican majorities in Congress. I have heard several Senators try to lay the blame for the expiration of farm legislation on President Clinton for vetoing the budget reconciliation bill which contained a version of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. This, they say, was the 1995 farm bill which was voted, passed, and sent to the President. What they fail to mention is that everyone knew for months that the reconciliation bill, with or without freedom to farm, was going to be vetoed. the Republican majority in Congress knew, far in advance, that if they insisted on freedom to farm being part of the budget reconciliation bill, there would be no farm bill unless they took other action to secure passage of farm legislation outside the budget reconciliation process. The Republicans are in charge of the House and Republicans are in charge of the Senate. They clearly had the opportunity and the power to take other action and they not only failed, they failed to try. Not only has the Republican majority failed to achieve any positive result, they have even refused the assistance of their Democratic colleagues. Next to the harm being thrust on the American farmer, the most troubling aspect to the farm bill failure of 1995 is the untimely demise of traditional farm-State coalitions. In every farm bill debate I can remember, farm-State Senators, regardless of party affiliation, were able to come together in a common purpose. To us, that purpose had been to pass a farm bill that is in the best interest of the American farmer and the American consumer while all the time recognizing the unique nature of the farm sectors of our respective States. But, for some inexplicable reason, the Republican majority made the decision to disregard this practice which has given rural America successfully enacted farm bills for nearly five decades. The result of that decision should have been obvious, but now even the Republican majority has to admit that they couldn't do it alone. In fact, when you look at how we got in this mess, it becomes clear that there was no real agreement within the Republican majority about farm policy. The so-called Freedom to Farm Act was introduced by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, but he could not even secure passage of his bill in his own committee--even the ranking Republican member voted against it. The Senate Agriculture Committee never gave it any serious consideration because they saw the flaws it contained. The fact that it was wedged into a reconciliation bill completely outside the purview of any agriculture committee--House or Senate--begs the question whether agriculture committees are relevant any longer. Even the House Speaker's task force on committee review has suggested terminating the House Agriculture Committee and merging its responsibilities with other committees. The inability of the House Agriculture Committee to report a 1995 farm bill will probably do little to dissuade the speaker from the recommendations of his own task force. The Republican majority may have failed to include Democratic participation in writing a farm bill because they thought we didn't want farm program reform. If that was their reason, they were badly mistaken. Senate Democrats, myself included, want serious farm bill reform and we know the only way to achieve it is through serious farm bill debate. If we had been allowed to participate in the debate--if there had been a debate--I do not believe we and, more importantly, America's farmers would be in the desperate situation we now find ourselves. There are lots of good ideas out there. There are some I would like to offer, there are others I would like to learn more about, but ideas do not grow well in a vacuum outside the light of public debate. We deserve better and, without question, rural America deserves better. We can do a lot of finger pointing, but that really accomplishes little, and nothing positive. Farmers in my State and farmers in every State can not be told to wait another day for farm policy guidance. I wish we had time to have the farm bill debate we have requested for more than a year. I wish we had time to enact a new 5 or 7-year farm bill to completely replace expiring farm and nutrition programs. However, the calendar tells us the time necessary to do all those things has been lost. All that we have time to do, and what we must do, is to enact an extension of expired programs for another year in which farmers can do what they do best and we can do what hasn't been done at all: debate and pass a farm bill. What happens if Congress does nothing? What happens if Congress defaults on its responsibility to rural America? As unlikely as that seemed 1 year ago, we now have to seriously examine the consequences of procedure in 1996 with no congressional action on farm policy. Should that occur, and I truly hope it does not, farmers would then turn to the programs available under the CCC Charter Act and the agricultural acts of 1938 and 1949, the so-called permanent law. It is fortunate for America's farmers that these laws exist, not because they are good policy for the 1990's, but because they serve as a hammer that should persuade Congress to reauthorize the 1990 farm bill. If we revert to permanent law a couple of things will occur: First, there is no specific rice program and the Secretary will have to rely on very broad authorities to provide some sort of price support mechanism; second, wheat and feed grain prices would go through the roof. In addition to these features, there are a host of other arcane provisions that would further complicate the lives of farmers and those responsible for administering farm policy. Some farmers might fare well under permanent law. For those farmers lucky enough to still have acreage allotments that were established decades ago, they will receive prices tied to parity which means the price they receive will give them the same buying power the price for their crop held between 1910 and 1914. In some ways it's like playing the lottery. If you are one of the lucky ones, you will receive more in payments than you ever expected. If your luck has run out, you may receive nothing. With feed grain prices doubling or tripling, if you are a producer of beef, pork, poultry, catfish, bread, cookies, pasta, et cetera, or if you are a consumer of any of the above, you are going to see your costs skyrocket. Farmers have long had to deal with the weather, markets, and other unknowns. They should not now have to be asked to bear the additional uncertainty of playing the lottery as well. Farmers need certainty. Earlier this week, it was mentioned that an extension of current law provides no ``certainty'' and only passage of freedom to farm would give farmers ``certainty'' for the future. In fact, it was suggested that if we extended current law, the only certain thing to happen immediately is the repayment of the 1995 advance deficiency payments which would further cripple farmers trying to advance a 1996 crop. I will ask to have printed in the Record an announcement by Secretary Glickman on December 22 that advance deficiency repayments are deferred for 3 years, which was the extent of action he was authorized to take. This clearly will give Congress time to deal more thoroughly with this important matter. Secretary Glickman has already offered American farmers the certainty of knowing there will be no near-term demand for repayment. He should be commended for taking this action and I fully expect that we will be able to more fully resolve this problem before the end of the 3-year period. It was further suggested, earlier this week, that if we passed the Freedom to Farm Act, farmers would have the certainty of knowing they will receive $43.5 billion in payments over the next 7 years. I do not question the intent of my Republican colleagues in the Senate that they hope these payments would, in fact, be made over the 7 years--although knowing the history of the House majority leader's attempts to kill farm programs, I am not so sure about the underlining intent of that body. But I must question any use of the term ``certainty'' that has been attached to these payments. Perhaps the most egregious feature of the freedom to farm scheme is the payment of large sums of money to farmers in years when crop prices are bringing record profits and even to farmers who have no requirement to farm anything at all except the Federal Treasury. Since their inception, farm programs have been designed to allow payments to farmers only when crop prices have fallen below set levels. This provided a form of safety net that has helped stabilize the farm economy and avoid the tremendous social disruptions that we witnessed during the Great Depression. But I must warn my Republican friends who think they are protecting rural America, that providing large payments to farmers during periods of high prices or to farmers who no longer farm is an invitation to disaster, the biggest farm disaster we have ever seen. I realize that the Freedom to Farm Act makes reference to the term ``contracts'' which suggests a guarantee of payments over the 7-year period. I also realize that many Members of Congress have been trained in the legal profession and have had more than a cursory review of the elements of a contract. But the requirements of protecting against the abrogation by a future Congress of ``contracts'' described in legislation go far beyond simple contract law. American farmers know what a contract is, or should be, and I am afraid they are being led to believe that the Freedom to Farm Act is talking about contracts in the normal sense of that term. The abrogation of contracts executed through the authority of congressional legislation is nothing new to the Federal courts. The contracts discussed in the Freedom to Farm Act are not protected by the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution. The contracts clause is found in section 10 of article I which states: ``No State shall * * * pass any * * * law impairing the obligation of contracts * * *'' (emphasis added). In fact, case law concludes that the sovereign power of Congress to subsequently amend legislation--and contracts authorized by such legislation--is implied in the absence of ``unmistakable terms'' or other strong indications that Congress clearly intended to bind the actions of a future Congress. It has been my opinion that nothing in the freedom to farm provisions that were appropriately vetoed by President Clinton approaches the threshold of ``unmistakable terms'' necessary to limit the actions of a future Congress. My opinion is also shared by many legal experts from around the country. Because of my concerns that the American farmer was being misled by the alleged promises of 7 years of payments, I had asked for an opinion by the National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information as well as leading law schools with strong agricultural law programs around the country and they all concur that there is nothing in the freedom to farm provisions that guarantees payments over 7 years. Why is this fact so important? Why should farmers be concerned if Congress can change its mind in a year or two? What does all this have to do with ``Certainty''? With all due respect to farm programs enacted by Congress and administered by USDA, there are many critics of these programs who would be eager to point out the outrageous use of tax dollars to pay huge sums to farmers when market prices are high or who have opted to spend the growing seasons in the Bahamas. It would only take a few headlines and a few news magazine television programs to draw the wrath of the nonfarm public to force Congress to end, once and for all, farm programs. It takes little imagination to conclude that media scrutiny of freedom to farm, once put into practice, would likely result in not only a loss of the remaining freedom to farm payments, but of the possibility of any Federal support for farmers in the future. If anything is certain, it is that farmers would be without farm programs a lot sooner than they expected. As I suggested earlier, such a result would not be far removed from the stated objectives we have heard expressed for years by the current House majority leadership. Earlier this week, there was an attempt on this floor to repeal by unanimous consent the underlying agricultural acts which we refer to as permanent law. Farmers may have more to worry about than they realize. Yes, farmers are asking for certainty, but I don't believe they are asking for the certainty of bankruptcy. Mr. President, it would be truly tragic if the tactics that shut down the Federal Government for an unprecedented 27 days are now used to shut down the farm sector, possibly for all time. Clearly, the freedom- to-farm provisions are not acceptable to me, they are not acceptable to my Democratic colleagues. If passed they will once again be rejected by President Clinton, and they will be rejected by every member of the farming community once farmers are given the opportunity to see through the candy store glitter of allegedly promised payments. The task before us now is to move the process forward to give farmers some immediate guidance for the crops they need now to put in the ground and for all of us in Congress to finally work together to craft a reasonable farm bill to take American agriculture into the next century. I know there are some reforms that we should all agree on that we can include in a farm bill extension. Farmers need flexibility to better adjust to changing markets and to give them the ability to rotate crops in a manner that best serves their conservation needs. We can do that, and we must. Republicans and Democrats have proven in farm bills past that we can work together. We ask now for a 1-year extension of current law with certain modifications. All it takes is 1 year to write, debate, and pass a farm bill. Although 1995 was not such a year, there is not reason why 1996 can't be. I ask unanimous consent that the announcement by Secretary Glickman, to which I earlier referred, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Kansas is prepared, or does she need a little additional time to get ready?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, as everyone in this body knows I have been a vocal proponent of reforming the 1872 mining law. This 124-year- old anachronism continues to permit the extraction of billions of dollars' worth of hardrock minerals from public land without compensating the taxpayers and in a manner that causes significant environmental degradation. Unfortunately, the new majority in Congress has little or no interest in meaningful reform of the mining law. During the congressional recess an article appeared in the New York Times discussing the proposed New World gold mine which would be located within 2.5 miles of Yellowstone National Park. It is painfully obvious that unless action is taken soon, Yellowstone will be gravely imperiled. In fact, the World Heritage Commission recently designated Yellowstone National Park a world heritage site in danger primarily due to the proposed mine. Mr. President, some of my colleagues from the West argue that mining is a primary way of life in their States and any changes in the mining law that made it more difficult to pollute the land or provided for the payment of meaningful royalties would have a negative impact on their States. However, as the New York Times article points out, their constituents do not necessarily agree. In fact, much of the western economy depends on pristine land, air, and water. Certain mining operations are not synonymous with such conditions, especially in the absence of more stringent environmental restrictions. The scars of previous mining operations are littered throughout the country. In fact, 59 sites on the Superfund national priority list are directly related to mining. According to the Bureau of Mines, there are 180,000 acres of land and 12,000 miles of rivers that have been polluted by waste from abandoned mines. The cost to taxpayers to clean up this mess will be astronomical. Yet no one seems willing to do anything to prevent future disasters, such as the New World mine. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider what we may be doing to our national treasures, such as Yellowstone Park, if we do not act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report that appeared in the January 7 issue of the New York Times regarding the ``Montana Mining Town Fights Gold-Rush Plan'' dealing with the gold mine that is about to be built just outside the gates of Yellowstone, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, tomorrow is the drop-dead date for Congress on how we will keep the Government going. In addition, the deadline is fast approaching on honoring the full faith and the credit clause of the Constitution. I say not only to the people of this country but to people all over the world that we intend to honor the debentures you hold, and we will pay you interest for helping us finance our debt. I have never really felt that when push came to shove, there would be any question about whether or not we would extend and raise the debt ceiling. There still is not. I feel sure this will happen. If it does not happen tomorrow, as it should, it will certainly happen by the last day of February. To do otherwise would be the height of irresponsibility. So I am not really worried about that, and I applaud some of the comments I have seen by Mr. Armey and Speaker Gingrich on that subject. Now, tomorrow, as I understand it, the Senate will vote on a continuing resolution to keep the Government afloat until March 1. Also, I understand that the continuing resolution will fund most of the programs not covered by enacted appropriations bills at 75 percent of the fiscal year 1995 funding level or the lower of the funding levels provided by the fiscal year 1996 House or Senate appropriations bill, if that level exceeds the 75 percent funding level. However, programs funded pursuant to the HUD-VA bill and State, Justice, Commerce bill, will be funded at the levels provided in their conference reports. Programs funded pursuant to the third bill on which we have a conference report, namely Interior, as I understand it, are going to be funded instead as if the Interior bill did not have a conference report. All the agencies funded in that bill will have to live on the lower of the House or Senate bill, or 75 percent of what they got in 1995. Mr. President, tomorrow when the debate on the continuing resolution begins, I hope somebody will be able to tell me why we are treating the programs funded by the Interior appropriations bill differently. I do not like that. I see no reason not to treat Interior the same way we do HUD-VA, and State, Justice, Commerce. Second, at some point tomorrow there is going to be a motion made by the majority leader to adjourn the U.S. Senate until February 26. I can tell you categorically that I do not intend to vote for that motion. It is almost as unfathomable to me why we would leave here, with all this work undone, until February 26, as it is why we want to shut the Government down all the time around here. I have been here 21 years and things have happened here in the last 3 months that, in my opinion, are not only unfathomable and unexplainable, but inexcusable. We are supposed to be here to govern. We are not supposed to be here making sure all 100 Senators and all 435 Congressmen, get their way. I think it was Longfellow who said one time: ``You better be careful about what you pray for because you might get it.'' You have 100 Senators here and everybody is saying if I cannot have my way there will be no way. Governing is the art of compromise. There are strong feelings on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on hundreds of items. I did not get my way on the space station or that sucker would have been dead a long time ago. One hundred billion dollars squandered. And we say we need more money for education? Congress has provided $7 billion more for the Defense Department than the administration requested. ``We don't want the extra 20 B-2's. It is true you only put $500 million in for 20 B-2's, but what is the total cost down the road? It is $30 billion. We do not need them. We do not want them.'' Many times, when I used to come out here if I was opposing something in the Defense bill, Members on the other side of the aisle, who are prone to vote for every single dollar for defense no matter what it is, would say to me, ``You are opposed to this but the Secretary wants it, the President wants it, and all the Chiefs want it.'' So it would sail through here like a firestorm. Now I raise that issue with Members on the other side and I say: The President does not want it, the Secretary does not want it, and the Chiefs do not want it. Why are you putting it in here? And they answer: What do they know? What do they know about building ships on a noncompetitive basis? What do they know about 20 B-2 bombers that we say they need and we do not care if they say they do not want them? You see, if this were a perfect world and we had more money than we knew what to do with, I might not complain. Mr. President, 22 B-2 bombers and they would not dare fly one of them in Desert Storm for fear it would get shot down and that would kill the B-2 program, so they just did not fly them. They would not even let a B-1 fly over in Desert Storm for fear it would get shot down. Why am I concerned about that? Because I believe in balancing the budget with compassion and with a concern for the future of the country. When it comes to education, the people of this country have invariably reported in the polls they would pay more taxes if their children got a better education. Some of us here labor in the vineyards of education. Some of us try to keep the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities afloat because we believe culture is important. What has the majority done? They whack both endowments by 40 percent. So if there happen to be a few children around who are interested in opera or drama or art or anything else, and they need a few bucks from the Federal Government--forget it. Then you wonder why people act uncivilized. Why are people so rude? Most people who are leaving here--and in record numbers--do not say it in those words, but everybody knows that, perhaps not the principle reason, but one of the reasons is because civility no longer exists here. What a tragedy. So, what are we going to do to improve civilized conduct? Cut every single program that has as its intention to enhance the understanding of the importance of the culture of the Nation, the importance of civilized conduct and civility, man-to-man, woman-to-woman, and so on. They say the mining industry in this country can take billions of dollars' worth of gold, silver, platinum and palladium off lands that belong to the taxpayers of this country and not pay one dime for it while we cut Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment. Corporate welfare is too nice a name. I call it corporate ripoff. I saw a report the other day, Mr. President, that said only 14 percent of the people in this country pay any attention to what is going on in Washington. That is the reason I can stand here and scream my lungs out day in and day out about this mining law of 1872, where the American mining industry has ripped this country off for billions and billions and continues to do so while we sit here and argue about how much we are going to cut education and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. Mr. President, hundreds of millions of dollars were cut from environmental protection. A British philosopher once said there is nothing more impossible than undoing something that has already been done. When you kill somebody you cannot bring him back to life. And when you rape and pillage the environment in a permanent way, you cannot bring it back. What are we doing? We are cutting the legs right out from under the people who enforce the environmental laws of this country, which over the past 25 years have increased the ``swimmability'' and the ``fishability'' of the lakes and rivers of this country. And there is not a sober person in America who does not want to continue that. Finally, Mr. President, I want to be supportive of the President. He mentioned just about everything in his State of the Union Address that I care anything about. I applaud his stand for saying we can balance the budget without destroying everything we hold dear. We do not have to assault the elderly, we do not have to assault the poor, and we certainly do not have to assault the children of this country in order to get a balanced budget. If you made me king for 10 minutes, I will produce a balanced budget in 7 years that does not do any of those things. However, it now appears that the White House and the majority party may be in the process of agreeing on the inane, crazy idea of cutting taxes. I will solve all of the problems of the balanced budget. You just give up on that tax cut. I would say both to the President and to the Speaker and the majority leader, if you absolutely insist on a tax cut, at least wait a year or two until this whole thing fleshes out and we find out. Is it going to work? Once you put the tax cut in place, everybody knows you will not ever take it back. So when you put the tax cut in place 7 years from now, CBO's estimate is that there will be $254 billion in savings to the Government just in interest cuts alone. That may turn out to be zip, zero, nil. But the $200-plus billion in tax cuts is already gone. So why does not the President or Senator Dole say, look, it is an oxymoron to say we are going to cut taxes and balance the budget. We tried that, you know, back in 1981. What did we get out of it? We got a $4 trillion increase in the national debt. But people have forgotten. The majority of the people in this body were not here in 1981 when we did that. They do not remember, so I am reminding them. I want it put on my epitaph that I was one of 11 U.S. Senators that voted no on the proposal that claimed it would raise defense spending by 100 percent and cut taxes and balance the budget. People in Arkansas are taking a pretty big hit these days, but I can tell you one thing: People down there have enough sense to know that that one will not work. So, Mr. President, I look forward to tomorrow and what I hope will be a civilized debate, an intelligent debate, and one that will say, do not put the farm bill on this. That is a nonstarter. Pass a clean debt ceiling bill. What we ought to do is adopt a clean continuing resolution to keep the Government going until March 1, and we ought to pass a debt ceiling limit so that people in the world, not just in the United States--bear in mind, of the $5 trillion national debt, almost 40 percent of it, a third of it, is held by foreigners. The people in this country and the people in Congress may think this holding the debt ceiling hostage is cute and funny, but the Japanese and Germans do not think it is funny. When they hold a U.S. Government bond that is supposed to return them 6 percent interest, when it comes due they want their 6 percent. They do not want all of this mickeying around about who is holding who hostage in the U.S. Congress. The very thought that we might falter in the payment of our interest on U.S. Government obligations is absolutely Byzantine. Just to talk about things that have happened around here that you have never seen before and hope to God you never see again, here is a farm bill that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House could not even get out of his committee. He is chairman. His own Republican membership reneged on him. It was brought up in the Senate just for talking purposes but not to be voted on, because everybody knew that it would be beaten soundly in the U.S. Senate. Called ``Freedom to Farm,'' it never got out of the committee in the House, never passed the House, never passed the Senate, never was even considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee, and they talk about putting that thing on the continuing resolution tomorrow? The farmers of my State want something definitive so they can go to the bank and borrow money and plant their rice and their soybeans. But they do not want that sucker, and nobody else does either. So why do we not extend existing law for 1 year and put the fears and the apprehensions of the farmers of America at ease? Mr. President, I am going to vote against the adjournment motion until some resolution of this farm program is made, and the rice farmers of my State, who produce 40 percent of all of the rice in this Nation, have some certainty. The first thing you know--as my colleague said in the press conference this morning, Senator Pryor--you keep messing around so they cannot plant their rice, and the next thing you will know we will lose all of our world markets for American rice. We have squandered $1 to $1.5 billion mickeying around one-upping each other. In closing, Mr. President, let me repeat. The people of the country last year had a right to be angry. They were angry for all kinds of different reasons. I will not presume to know precisely why everybody voted the way they did. They were not voting for chaos. They were not voting to see how much havoc we could create and impose on innocent people. They wanted changes. They did not want to see the Government dismantled. They did not want to see the Government shut down and leave the country defenseless, almost anarchistic. So tomorrow I hope will be an interesting and enlightening and sensible debate. I hope when we leave here tomorrow night, if and when we do, that we leave with a pretty good feeling that we finally have begun to recognize each other's feelings about this and have finally begun to get our act together and reassure the people of the country that we are not really just a bunch of bickering children up here. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I have no objection.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not sure I understood what the Senator from North Carolina said. Was the Senator calling up a bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator calling a bill up for debate and consideration?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator calling a bill up for debate and consideration?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not sure I understood what the Senator from North Carolina said. Was the Senator calling up a bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. I have no objection.